By Noah Dawson
Discussions about what policies are best for a city can be healthy and productive, but when the rhetoric changes from differing policy preferences to an argument between worldviews where facts either do or do not matter, the discussion quickly falls apart. Sadly, this seems to be what has happened here in Amarillo, as top City officials have been seemingly defended false statements. One brief inaccurate statement here and there could be overlooked, but it feels like the City of Amarillo's lack of concern for the truth has become a pattern.
One prominent area where the City and I have disagreed has been over the state of public comment meetings. That’s fine. Though I feel they are broken, it is perfectly understandable that others may feel they are running well. I interviewed city manager Jared Miller a few weeks ago about this issue, hoping to find some common ground, hoping to understand his viewpoints on the issue. During the interview, he did mention that “from all sides of the room, I think public comment is going much better now.”
When asked if he felt the way the meetings were advertised was misleading, Mr. Miller said “No, no, not at all. We can’t guarantee that there’s gonna be enough people to speak to take public comment past 12:15, 12:30, 12:45.”
From his viewpoint, there was no issue, despite meetings ending before all listed speakers appeared on several occasions. Still, despite feeling this was never really an issue, he still explained that it had been changed on the website, and that it had previously been the way it was due to a technical limitation of the software the city uses, saying that they “had to put an end time for that meeting to show up.” If it wasn’t an issue, the reason Mr. Miller had for solving the issue seems totally unclear. If it wasn’t broken, why wasn't it fixed? Similarly, Miller pled ignorance about the way council meetings were advertised on displays at city hall, despite the fact that I, more than once, brought up the issue at public comment meetings, and the fact that he claimed during the interview to be listening during the public comment meetings.
In fact, before all of this transpired, during the first week of the new public comment times, I arrived to speak before 1pm, but shortly after the meeting was adjourned. City officials refused to let me speak, claiming the meeting was not advertised as lasting until 1pm. At that time, however, the meeting was still shown on city hall displays and on the city website as lasting from noon until 1pm.
As a side note on this issue, Miller also dismissed my proposal to change the length allotted for each speaker based on the number of speakers who sign up, saying that “in most situations, you should be able to get across the gist in 3 minutes. That’s a very widely accepted number, I wouldn’t see a need 6 or 10 just to take up the entire time."
One other issue regarding the public comment meetings we discussed were the rules of decorum. As I’ve pointed out before, the rule against personal remarks is both flimsy and unequally enforced. While I wanted to discuss his views on whether or not there was a connection between the conduct of council members and policy and whether or not, if the rule is kept, if it would be more equally enforced, I did not get such a discussion. Instead, Mr. Miller claimed there is no such rule, saying that “personal remarks are fine.”
The following is quoted directly from Amarillo Municipal Code Section 2-2-1, part H:
“Any person making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks, or who shall become boisterous while addressing the City Council, or any person who shall refuse to abide by the orders of the presiding officer of the City Council shall forthwith be barred from further audience before the City Council.”
The same text is usually displayed on the screens in the council chambers during public comment meetings. It clearly reads that one of the types of remarks which can lead to being barred from speaking are “personal” ones.
Why City officials have been so insistent that no such rule exists is unclear. The rule clearly exists, and it has been used to stop members of the public from speaking on certain issues during the public comment meetings.
I’m not the only person to notice instances where City officials have appeared to distort the truth. Local animal advocates have accused the City of repeatedly changing the story regarding the events which led to G7, a pregnant dog who was in labor, being put down. There were calls from the audience during a public comment meeting claiming City staff were twisting the truth about changes to city policy in response to a different dog, Gordy, being wrongfully put down. Specifically, talking to Amarillo Chronicles, animal advocate Dacia Anderson said that, when asked about low cost spay and neuter programs offered by the shelter, Mr. Miller “proceeded to tell us about the spays and neuters that they’re actually doing in house.” Mrs. Anderson then pointed out that “That is only for adopted animals. That is not for the public to utilize.” While in this instance, Mr. Miller might have been technically correct in his words, anybody aware of the context should be able to easily see how misleading it seemed.
Back when it was decided to stop broadcasting public comment meetings, Mr. Miller cited “frequent examples of grossly incorrect information” and the fact that “one of [The City's] core pillars is accurate communication.”
If the City can punish concerned members of the public for making misstatements, it should only be fair that the City should face consequences for replacing the truth with its distorted and often fictional worldview.
